Steward requests/Miscellaneous

(Redirected from SRM)
Requests and proposals Steward requests (Miscellaneous) Archives

This page is for Wikimedia wikis having no active administrators. Requests can be made here for specific administrative actions (such as page deletion) to be performed by a steward or global sysop. In other cases:

  • If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.
  • If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request.
  • For global lock/block requests, file a request at Steward requests/Global.
  • For non-controversial deletion requests such as empty page, simple spam or vandalism, and non-controversial or emergency requests to block vandals, spammers or other malicious users, you may use global sysop requests instead.
  • If a consensus is considered required to act, similar principles apply as expressed at Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements, and can be used for guidance to how and what should be done at small and medium communities to gain a consensus.

To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the "Manual requests" section using the format below:

=== Very brief description of request here ===
{{Status|In progress}}
Give details about your request here. --~~~~

It is helpful if you can provide a link to the wiki (or the specific page on the wiki) in question, either in the header or in the body of your request.

When reporting cross-wiki vandalism, the following template calls can be used to link to a user's contributions across all Wikimedia content wikis (these are for logged in users and non-logged-in users, respectively):

* {{sultool|Username}}

* {{luxotool|IP.address}}

Template {{LockHide}} can also be used in appropriate cases.

To request approval of OAuth consumers please use {{oauthapprequest}} (see the documentation before using).

Old requests are archived by the date of their last comment.

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Bot-reported requests edit

See Global sysops/Speedy delete requests.

Manual requests edit

kmwiktionary: collapsible boxes to work on mobile edit

Status:    In progress

Please add the following scripts in Mediawiki namespace: navframe.js, common.js, common.css, mobile.css. Please also change the namespace and its talk page to translated one: "Wiktionary" → "វិគីនានុក្រម". Thank you. — RalvahKaset (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RalvahKaset, for the latter one you have to follow Requesting wiki configuration changes, it is not changed with an on wiki edit. --Base (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thank you. So I'd like to retain the former request only. RalvahKaset (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RalvahKaset, the two scripts in navframe and common .js pages seem to be almost the same. Do you really need both? @Ladsgroup, @Krinkle, @MusikAnimal, @Matma Rex, could any of you review if that script is safe? I am not too sure about that id concatenation, but my JS knowledge is rather basic.--Base (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yeah, that script seems to have unsafe concat. Amir (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RalvahKaset The wiki has a mw-collapsible feature that works on all wikis by default, and does not require custom NavFrame script. Does this satisfy the needs of kmwiktionary? See mw:Manual:Collapsible_elements for examples. Krinkle (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sinhala Wikipedia GS policy edit

Status:    In progress

Hi fellow GS/Stews, think this can be discussed here, rather than on the ML. On siwiki, a local sysop linked to some GSs a local policy, in which there are some limitation in the use of the flags. You can read the discussion here. The point is that, imho, GS can't start to work on several projects with different local limits, e.g. on a wiki they cannot delete "test page", maybe or another wiki they cannot revdel, or delete "non notable people" and so on. In the long run it would become difficult to manage all the limitations that are created. Notwithstanding that the policy seems to still be in draft, but it is still applied, so I consider it applied, given that the local sysop agrees with it, do you think there is an alternative solution to the application of this policy, other than the removal of the wiki from the GS wikiset? Thanks. --Superpes15 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With an entire 1 active admin my first pass is that this project is not large enough to self-manage, certainly not large enough to withdraw from the GS set. If they have identified some special conditions (like an IP range that they would like to avoid blocks on, they can advertise that on the block dialog page (even their local admins would want to be reminded about that). GS's don't act only for "emergencies", they act because the community hasn't grown sufficiently to be able to deal with their own issues. If they actually have enough local contributors, they should work on getting them promoted to admins - the GS's won't have anything to do if the local admin team is on top of everything. Note, these are general comments and not a review of any specific action. — xaosflux Talk 16:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Superpes15 We can of course cater to individual local specifics, but we can't have a different policy for every wiki.
Where GS are active is (global) regulated. There is no need for a local policy here, and a local GS-policy cannot be binding because it is not possible to read 800 guidelines. Either there is a Wiki in GS or not. If a wiki is large enough to manage itself, we will not or rarely intervene. If a wiki is small and GS is active, we will treat all small wikis equally. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely agree with both! "If a wiki is small and GS is active, we will treat all small wikis equally"! Exactly, in this case this is the issue, since the local (draft) policy was linked to at least 5 different GSs, explicitly asking to threat it in a different way. The project is very small and GSs are necessary there (in my humble view). But this policy can create problem between local and global community. The sysop also said that the community is scared of GS's power, but I didn't get what they were referring to, neither did they explain it. Hope they can do this here, because we don't want to impose anything, we just work for the serenity and well-being of all the users and communities! Superpes15 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree with the negative comments here. The page in question is from 2009(!), apparently a draft created with the help of respected Meta-users Kylu and Pathoschild. It contains some mild suggestions even with explanations for why it is requested to not block certain IP ranges (even though the ranges are not specified) or not to delete English pages because users will translate it later. Probably the page, being from 2009, needs to be checked by local users whether all of it still applies. But in general it is merely a request to global sysops to use their rights with caution and courtesy. --MF-W 13:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MF-Warburg: The problem is that local sysop used this page as limitation for GS. They said "Why bring up global sysops, especially when there exist a global sysop policy that request them to help in counter vandalism and not to interfere with ordinary maintenance work". Also, local policy seems older than global one, I don't think is doable to ask GSs not to do maintenance work (while global policy allows GS to perform routine maintenance). Superpes15 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally would like the *support* from the global community in our projects. But if anyone start a vote to opt-out, I will support it. Regarding LTA, we sure cannot defend ourselves from the global sysops exercising their powers by deleting valid pages because they have editorial opinions, that such pages should be considered test pages and deleted ASAP. Anyway if a global sysop or a steward cannot respect the local communities, should they really be allowed to hold such powers? I sure miss the days when the global community helped us instead of forcing their opinions on us. -- Lee (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee: where are the valid pages? Nobody imposed anything. The pages that have been deleted on siwiki are normal test pages. The elimination fits perfectly into the policies that govern the activity of GS. Obviously if they are considered valid they must be restored, who disputes that? If siwiki intends to host such content, I think that local policies are not compatible with the activity of GS. --Mtarch11 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A page that has a valid title and valid content is not a "test page" in our project. -- Lee (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee: Please don't change your words, you clearly said twice that GS cannot perform "maintenance work" on siwiki, and you also started saying that the GSs intimidated you or that I scared you (and this, from my point of view, is problematic, since I clearly didn't say anything scary), and that's precisely why I suggested an opt-out and opened this discussion. In your word ""suspected test page", is not a global sysop emergency" and "Why bring up global sysops, especially when there exist a global sysop policy that request them to help in counter vandalism and not to interfere with ordinary maintenance work?". You criticized a deletion made almost 2 years ago only after I pointed out that it's possible to opt-out, while it is not possible to limit the scope of GS intervention, and you restored only today the page, after almost 2 years. Just to be clear for anyone, this was the content of the deleted page. Title is "List of Sub Post Offices in Sri Lanka" and content is "මුරුතලාව". Please note that everyone can make mistakes or wrongly delete valid pages, but I don't understand why this deletion becomes the excuse or pretext to support the thesis that GSs/Stews impose things on a small wiki, where they aren't active as editor, neither partecipate in local discussion! As I already said, I no longer want to participate in an unconstructive discussion, if you think there are issues with the GSs, you know the procedure. Thanks Superpes15 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lee, I'm really sorry that you're not having a positive and constructive experience here, but to resolve this we will need to be talking about the same thing. If you can specify the action you are concerned with, we can discuss that and hopefully come to an understanding here. Fundamentally, we (steward and global sysops) are here to support siwiki and other small projects with maintenance tasks and routine cleanup. Deleting pages for editorial reasons, or for other controversial reasons, is out of our scope. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee I understand what you are trying to say here. I feel much has changed, now GSes assume that their only responsibility is clean up and anti-vandalism. In the past they would solve technical problems and actually let the community deal with most things. However, these talks can actually help people understand what the communities expects from Global sysop and stewards. So, please offer what you see as a solution in your opinion. It will definitely be considered. BRP ever 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, I personally do not feel that comfortable about the opt-out path. In a small wiki, when people are trying to build up things, deleting a page is very destructive. What about the backlog size? I mean our project is a project with active local sysops. You may note that the other local sysop has not done an administrative task since a long time, while he always visit and read things. That's because there aren't any issues left in backlogs. The global sysops can can see our deletion backlog; isn't it? Is there a possibility to make global sysops not delete things when there is only a small deletion backlog? May be there is a possibility to include that information in places where global sysops make the decision to go on a deletion rampage? -- Lee (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lee: There is already this page for the backlog. The issue here is that a lot of deletions on small wikis are made after a request on GSR, or maybe because a global sysop is patrolling recent changes, so they immediately delete the pages after the creation when the case is obvious, and they don't do it just because there is some backlog of pages tagged for deletion. Indeed, the case you provided is an example of a live deletion. Personally I think it's obvious that, if there are active local sysops, they should be contacted before any deletion, unless we are talking about spam/cross-wiki vandalism/LTA, but in this case I don't know how to inform the GS not to delete the pages on siwiki in general (also because the GS team is constantly changing). Superpes15 (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. But isn't that the issue we are trying to fix in this discussion? -- Lee (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To tell the truth, the original problem is the local policy which (according to you) contrasts with the global one, and we still haven't resolved it. I repeat, I personally would contact an active admin, but if another GS believes that there is a clear reason to delete for routine maintenance, I don't think they can be forced to ask a sysop first, unless we update the policy. If there are problems or abuse, you can contact or report that GS, that's for sure. I hope someone else can think of a solution, which doesn't come to mind for me, also because I've always been in a hurry in the last few weeks in RL. Superpes15 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LeeThere is a consensus for global policy. This sets the rules. No minority within Wikimedia projects can reject the policy. If they want different rules, they must create a general consensus to change the policy. Global rights are global and not local, so the use of these rights must be regulated by a global consensus. Far-reaching intervention at local level would compromise the use of global rights too severely and negate their purpose. A local policy would disrupt the global process and therefore everything must be handled uniformly.
If you have any problems, you can contact the respective GS; this will most likely solve your problem. Projects have a very high degree of freedom of decision, but you must bear in mind that siwiki, like any other language version, is not its own independent project, but part of a large community. 𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 16:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair: There are other projects with global rights policies as well [1] (but these usually opted out of the global sysop wikiset). And it seems like this policy was written at at time when the project had more active sysops than now [2][3]. If a project has enough active local sysops we usually don't interfere with them (e.g. leaving routine cleanup for the local community) and only act on ongoing spam/vandalism.
But it's true on the other hand that it is impossible to expect global sysops to know special rules of each local project, especially since so far no specific deletion has been presented which was actually controversial. Johannnes89 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keeping the use of tools limited to dealing with spam/vandalism/copyright and similar important issue, and not getting into how the community manages rest of the wiki unless requested by the community might do the trick. A lot of cases just need case-by-case attention. Can't really come up with anything specific in general. This is why communication and language skills were prioritised in GS requests, much has changed ever since.--BRP ever 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On the face of it the restrictions doesn't look that bad and it does appear to be created in good faith. That being said I'll have to agree with Superpes15. My experience is that GS (and even some stewards) tend to be unnecessarily conservative, fearing that they'll be in violation of some policy or the other. As a result I won't be opposed to a rule saying that small wikis are treated equally by global sysops, because if this continues it's going to be difficult for global sysops to determine what's OK and what isn't - we have enough of these problems already. Similarly, we need the opt-out criteria for GS to be quite strict - I don't agree with those who say that any (small) wiki should be able to opt-out if they want. Leaderboard (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help to remedy piracy and harassment edit

Status:    In progress
  • eowikt was filled by pirated content (copyright violation) from other wikis without atribution as well as from other online sources (PIV, ReVo, ...) between 2010 and 2020 by "Pablo Escobar" Requests_for_comment/Administrator_abuse_on_the_EO_Wiktionary and Requests for comment/Resolve massive copyright infringement on Wiktionary in Esperanto
  • copyright problems created by "Pablo Escobar"
    • example: [4] pirated from [5] -- more (Pablo is good at inventing words, but bad at writing definitions)
  • desperately poor quality of contributions by "Pablo Escobar"
  • my attempts to address the piracy and poor quality of the wiki in 2017 and 2018 attracted user "RG72" who attacked me 2018-10-20 for first time (after I had criticized the state of the wiki and proposed improvevent, but without attacking anyone, not "Pablo Escobar", and even less "RG72")
    Ĉu vi ne vidas diferencon inter krei kaj detrui?
    Don't you see the difference between to create and to destroy?
  • since then RG72 has always been rude to me
  • in 2021 account "Vami" appeared and harassed me for 3 months at the end of year Requests_for_comment/I_need_to_solve_the_problem_that_I_consider_important_in_the_eo.wiktionary.org_project#Two_months_of_harassment,_horrible_incivility,_trolling_and_false_accusations with the chief content "you are a vandal and you have destroyed this wiki" (actually, I invested much time into the opposite)
  • at that time "RG72" made a few rude posts too (example)
  • "RG72" is sysop at eowiki and usually not rude, but occasionally YES, if someone dares to criticize Russia (example: "Mi forigis paranojajn fantaziajxojn" "I removed paranoiaful fantasy"
  • Most likely "RG72" and "Vami" is the same person, due to same style (rudeness and accusations with "you are a vandal and you have destroyed this wiki")
  • Uzanta_diskuto%3ATaylor_49&diff=1185333&oldid=1184939 recent example of harassment by "RG72"
    Do kiam vi likvidos viajn fuŝojn? La artikolo edzo plu enhavas 16 "nekonatajn" lingvokodojn, vandalitajn de vi. Same en la aliaj artikoloj. Ĉu vi mem likvidos viajn vandalaĵojn aŭ tion devos plenumi iu alia? Ĉu vi komprenas ke vandalismo estas punenda per forbaro?
    So when will you annihilate your botchery? The article edzo still contains 16 "unknown" language codes, vandalized by you. Same in other articles. So will you annihilate your botchery yourself, or does anyone else have carry out this task? Are you aware that vandalism must be punished by ban?
  • after makig this threat, "RG72" applied for adminship at eowikt: kandi
  • vote stacking and canvassing: wikipedia -- wikt, support vote of "Vami" arrived only 15 hours after RG72's RFA, after Vami had been absent for more than 1 year -> either same person (-> sockpuppetry), or RG72 phoned (or similar) Vami and asked for the vote (-> meatpuppetry) (same for the account "Amikeco", also from Russia)
  • "RG72" also wrote 97% of an article about emself
  • in 2017, eowikt did not have any help pages (it had several pages in the Help: namespace, copied from German wiktionary, though, still in German), now it has such
  • in 2017, eowikt barely had a category structure (almost all categories were redirected or empty), now it has such
  • in 2017, eowikt did not have any templates or modules beyond most primitive ones (but 5 to 10 instances of every template as compenation), now it has such, with documentation in Esperanto and self-test, [11] [12] [13] [14] and many others
  • piracy violates WMF TOS
  • harassment violates WMF TOS and UCOC
  • "RG72" intends to ban me for personal reasons (maybe parts of my identity, maybe my attempts to clean out piracy, maybe some comment of mine criticizing Russia, maybe ...)

Taylor 49 (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(прошу прощения, что пишу на русском языке) Хочу дать несколько комментариев:
  • Я точно знаю, что участники RG72 и Amikeco являются разными людьми: я лично знаю Amikeco и много знаю про RG72. И хотя я лично не знаком с ним, но могу уверенно сказать, что это разные люди.
  • Я являюсь активным противником написания статей о себе (и несколько раз отвечал отказом о предложении написать статью про меня). Однако я внимательно изучил статью об участнике RG72 и могу сказать, что статья написана по авторитетным источникам и не содержит фактов восхваления самого участника. Я не поддерживаю его участие в данной статье, но я не вижу в этом признаков преследования или харасмента по отношению к участнику Taylor 49.
  • Я уверен, что вопросы пиратства или нарушения авторских прав в eowikt не имеет отношения к преследованию или харасменту по отношению к участнику Taylor 49.
VladimirPF (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More harassment available:
anstataŭ klarigi siajn agojn elverŝis histeriajn fantaziojn
instead of explaining eir actions, ey poured hysteric fantasies
Se tia obseda detruado, politike motivitaj histerioj kaj vandalismo estas normo
If such obsessive destruction, politically motivated hystery and vandalism is the norm
... written at the occasion of a discussion to desysop RG72 at eo wikipedia (NOT started by me). Taylor 49 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I categorically reject all Taylor79’s accusations and ask him to clarify that Wiktionary, Wikipedia, as well as other wikiprojects, were created so that participants would create, respectively, a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., and not satisfy their painful passion for power , or throwing tantrums about their own political fantasies, sexual identity, etc.

A few years ago, I discovered that Taylor79 had arbitrarily renamed my article [15], as a result of which she lost Wikilinks to similar articles in other Wiktionaries, besides making serious mistakes - he wrote the proverb with a capital letter, and put a period at the end. When I asked him about the reasons for such a ridiculous, arbitrary and obviously wrong decision, he began to pour out his political fantasies about Russia, declaring that En Ruslando malsamopiniuloj ĉiam alfrontis ne nur forbaron, sed plej ofte ankaŭ malliberejon, torturon kaj mortigon. Mi ne forbaras vin nun ĉar mi ne estas tiel perfortema kiel vi, sed mi forlasas ĉi tiun fiiĝintan discuton. [16] (In Russia, people with different opinions always face not only blocking, but most often also imprisonment, torture and murder. I “don’t block you” only because I’m not as violent as you , but I leave this completely spoiled discussion).

Later, I also accidentally discovered that he had removed dozens of translations into other languages from another article of mine. When I asked about the reasons for such vandalism, Taylor79 replied that they had no place here, they should only be in articles about the Esperanto versions of these words. When asked why he didn’t move them to the corresponding articles in this case, Taylor79 replied that those interested could find the translations... in the history of the articles from which he deleted them. If this is not madness, then what is it?

At my insistence, he still moved these translations into the corresponding articles, but recently I discovered that dozens of them are reflected as belonging to languages \u200b\u200bwith unknown language codes. When I created these translations, I simultaneously created corresponding templates for all languages. However, Taylor79 is obsessed with deletion and endless, chaotic edits (Wiktionary history shows that the same templates and articles are edited by his robot endlessly and chaotically) When I asked what happened and why he continues to spoil articles created by other users, he fell into hysterics again: Bv paciencu, kaj ĉesu ataki min (la agresemo de via prezidanto estas pli ol sufiĉa, ĉu ne?) [17] (Please calm down and stop attacking me (your president’s aggressiveness is more than enough, isn’t it?).

Every time, faced with his hysterical statements, I answer the same thing: Mi sugestas al vi koncentriĝi je laboro, ne malŝpari tempon kaj fortojn por sentutila babilado kaj plendado (I advise you to concentrate on your work, not waste time and strength not useless chatter and complaints). I did this many times, but it was all to no avail - Taylor79 continues to attack me, now on other wikis, demanding that I be blocked due to differences in political views and regularly talking about his sexual identity, which, as I have repeatedly told him, he is not at all interested in the people who have gathered here to create a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., and not to discuss anyone's personal life or political views.

Several years ago, Taylor79 was stripped of his status as a Wiktionary administrator by stewards precisely because of his endless conflicts with members, massive edits and deletions, which turned the project into his personal playground. Having lost his administrator status, he demanded that the Esperanto-Wiktionary be completely eliminated. I think this is enough to understand who we are dealing with.

I will add that his statements about “spreading Russian propaganda” are completely ridiculous, which is clear to anyone familiar with journalism. The examples he gives are interviews and reports, respectively, in the first case the point of view of the interviewee is stated, in the second - the events that the author of the report became a witness and/or participant in are described. It is impossible to find a report in any news project whose author does not reflect his own views, since an absolutely neutral text can only be created by an absolutely neutral person - and such people do not exist. However, these are the basics of journalism, which hardly need explanation. RG72 (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix MediaWiki:Common.css on ugwikt edit

Status:    In progress

The local common.css including ".ns-0 h2" setting(wikt:ug:MediaWiki:Common.css#L-39). This affects the display of the title bar under Timeless Skin. I think it will be fine by changing it to ".ns-0 #mw-content-text h2" I checked the local sysop group and interface-admin, there is only abuse filter in sysop group. Since the impact is smaller and there are fewer local participants, I am making the request directly here, please understand. --LaMagiaaa (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LaMagiaaa have you tried this (such as via your own user/common.css) across various skins (esp the default reader skin) on that project? — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't write that on my css. Actually, I found this on Wiktionary in other languages (for example, kawikt). Since the part he's responsible for is similar, I just submitted it here. I just tested the effect of ugwikt’s current CSS on other skins and found no problems. Since the application scope of the newly replaced code is smaller than the original one, my technical level does not allow me to test it on the local wiki in this case. Precisely because the scope has become smaller, I think there will be no problem with the new code.
If you still think I need a local test, please reply again and I'll try my best. Thanks. LaMagiaaa (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Since I had some time to spare, I ran a local test. I set a color and style that I had never seen on the wiki and looked at all the supported skins. Only the places I expected changed, and the rest of the places maintained the local site-wide css settings. I think no problem will occur.--LaMagiaaa (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OAuth permissions edit

  Preferably permission requests should be submitted using the form from Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration.

After submitting this form, you will receive a token that your application will use to identify itself to MediaWiki. An OAuth administrator will need to approve your application before it can be authorized by other users. It is possible to request approval using {{oauthapprequest}}, please create a sub-section to this part.

A few recommendations and remarks:

  • Try to use as few grants as possible. Avoid grants that are not actually needed now.
  • Versions are of the form "major.minor.release" (the last two being optional) and increase as grant changes are needed.
  • Please provide a public RSA key (in PEM format) if possible; otherwise a (less secure) secret token will have to be used.
  • Use the JSON restrictions field to limit access of this consumer to IP addresses in those CIDR ranges.
  • You can use a project ID to restrict the consumer to a single project on this site (use "*" for all projects).
  • The email address provided must match that of your account (which must have been confirmed).

See also edit